The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
In 2014, the pro-Russian parties controlled both the presidency and the Parliament. It was they who were negotiating with the European Union and had agreed to sign the association agreement, before suddenly balking and signing a deal with Russia.
It is quite surprising that they should have negotiated such a bad deal with the EU (we agree on the fact that it was a lousy deal); my retrospective suspicion that they did not negotiate in good faith, but had prepared the alternative deal with Putin.
It does not surprise me that the Russians did not expect Maidan. As the events of this year make clear, their intelligence is not as good as they think.
Why would the people of Donbas accept the new government that replaced the one they voted in overwhelmingly?
Why would anyone accept an election they didn't win? In fact, (setting aside the parts that couldn't vote : Crimea and the occupied Donbas), the pro-Russians were disenfranchised by the voluntary withdrawal of the Party of the Regions from the parliamentary elections of 2014 : ostensibly because they claimed that the elections lacked legitimacy because the people in the seceding regions couldn't vote! A bit circular.
As for the status of the Russian language, I can't find any political parties which called for eliminating Russian from Ukraine. In fact, Ukrainian is the only official language since the 1996 constitution (which explicitly protects the use of Russian and other national minority languages). The language issue in the context of 2014 appears to be something of a beat-up; but clearly, over the last eight years, with a low-level, then high-level war with Russia, the position of a lot of people has no doubt evolved.
I brought up the American civil war because you posed the question of moral equivalence between the Maidan revolution and the Donbas secession. The US civil war was the first example of secession that came to mind. But the analogy is quite weak; the US case was endogenous, whereas the Donbas rebellion was always about transferring the region from Ukraine to Russia (or perhaps you disagree?) It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
As the events of this year make clear, their intelligence is not as good as they think.
I've been saying that for years. We've spent about a decade in a soulless rerun of the Reagan era Russia panic and the idea that the USSR had vast infiltration networks in the West was completely laughable even then.
whereas the Donbas rebellion was always about transferring the region from Ukraine to Russia (or perhaps you disagree?)
I do indeed. If the aim was to integrate the Donbas into Russia the time to do so was in 2014 when the Ukrainian army was in no position to fight and not ideologically hardened. Mostly the Donbas militias were not getting the logistical support you'd assume they would get if they were supposed to form an integral part of the Russian state. The people of Donbas found themselves in a similar unhappy situation as the KPP in Syria. They had to accept Russia's/the US' help and effectively become proxies since there was nowhere else to turn. As far as I can tell the Russians wanted exactly what was on the tin: Minsk2. They grabbed the part of Ukraine they really cared about in 2014 and would have been happy enough to keep the rest in a state of neutrality while raking in euros hand over fist. Of course once the Ukrainian electorate voted the supposedly more pro-Russian Zelensky in, yet the renunciations of the peace treaty got if anything more pronounced all to applause from the guarantors in France and Germany they were left with the option of slinking home in humiliation or flip over the table in rage.
I added my comments and review of earlier writings in a new diary covering censorship, disinformation and engineering a colour revolution. Decades of shameful acts and atrocities by the United States of America. Referenced also astute writings by Jerome a Paris ...
Censorship a Characteristic of Advanced Fascism 'Sapere aude'
If the aim was to integrate the Donbas into Russia the time to do so was in 2014 when the Ukrainian army was in no position to fight and not ideologically hardened.
But I think we agree that Putin is a piss-poor strategist. In 2014, he was probably wary of provoking a strong US reaction if he attempted what he tried last year. So, the only unanswered question is why he thought it was a good idea in 2022.
The people of Donbas found themselves in a similar unhappy situation as the KPP in Syria. They had to accept Russia's/the US' help and effectively become proxies since there was nowhere else to turn.
To come back to the subject of this diary : I hardly think Merkel's explanations about Minsk are explosive. It should have been obvious to any observer that the western guarantors of the Minsk accords had no illusions about the accords being fully implemented; the military situation was highly favourable to the secessionists and their Russian backers, and the main thing was to stop the fighting. The separatists visibly had no intention of implementing the accords anyway, as evidenced by the fact that they organised their own elections in November 2018 in contradiction of the accord; likewise, the Ukrainian parliament was not enthusiastic about federalist constitutional changes. If Putin was really not interested in annexing further chunks of Ukraine at that time, he could certainly have pressured his protégés into keeping their side of the bargain; but he didn't. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Based on the Law of Ukraine "On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions", questions related to local elections will be discussed and agreed upon with representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group. Elections will be held in accordance with relevant OSCE standards and monitored by OSCE/ODIHR.
Didn't happen. (At the risk of repeating myself,) the Donetsk and Lugansk juntas held elections outside this agreed process. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
While the 2015 Ukrainian local elections had been scheduled for 25 October, DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko issued a decree on 2 July that ordered local DPR elections to be held on 18 October.[77] He said that this action was "in accordance with the Minsk agreements".[78] According to Zakharchenko, this move meant that the DPR had "independently started to implement the Minsk agreements".[78] Zakharchenko said that the elections would "take place 'on the basis of Ukraine's law on temporary self-rule status of individual districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions', in so far as they are not at variance with the constitution and laws of the DPR".[78] On the same day, President Petro Poroshenko responded that if DPR elections went forward in this unilateral manner, it would be "extremely irresponsible and will have devastating consequences for the process of deescalation of tension in certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions".[78] In addition, the OSCE said that it would only send observers to elections in the conflict zone if Ukraine invited it to do so.[79] As specified in Minsk II, local elections in DPR and LPR-held territories must be observed by the OSCE to be deemed legitimate.[39] LPR leader Igor Plotnitsky followed the DPR by scheduling elections in the territory that he controlled for 1 November 2015.
On the same day, President Petro Poroshenko responded that if DPR elections went forward in this unilateral manner, it would be "extremely irresponsible and will have devastating consequences for the process of deescalation of tension in certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions".[78] In addition, the OSCE said that it would only send observers to elections in the conflict zone if Ukraine invited it to do so.[79] As specified in Minsk II, local elections in DPR and LPR-held territories must be observed by the OSCE to be deemed legitimate.[39] LPR leader Igor Plotnitsky followed the DPR by scheduling elections in the territory that he controlled for 1 November 2015.
by Frank Schnittger - May 27
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 1 comment
by Oui - May 13 64 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - May 27
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 231 comment
by Oui - May 1364 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 448 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by gmoke - May 1
by Oui - Apr 30242 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2830 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 876 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments